//
austlii:qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/65
General information, not legal advice.
QBCCMCmr
2026-03-04
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Body Corporate for Princeton Court (respondent)
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) (Act), sections 227(1)(b) and (3)(a)
PROPERTY DAMAGE - whether the body corporate is responsible for the cause of water ingress to a lot, where the alleged cause is a failed waterproofing membrane in a planter box.
Act, s 281; Standard Module, s 180.
[1] This application for final orders follows the applicant's unsuccessful application for interim orders, Princeton Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 156.
[2] The applicant says water is entering their lot due to a failed waterproofing membrane within planter boxes that sit above their lot, which is within Lot 17. The applicant says the water is causing damage. This is obviously a problem.
[3] The applicant seeks orders that the body corporate repair the waterproofing membrane within the planter box of Lot 17. The body corporate does not dispute that it is responsible for maintaining that membrane, however, it has not fixed the membrane.
[4] The applicant also seeks orders that the body corporate be responsible for reimbursing them for repairs already done, undertaking any needed further repairs, as well as any future repairs.
[5] The body corporate does not agree that it is responsible for the damage to the lot. It submits there is not enough evidence to say that the failed waterproofing membrane above the applicant's lot is the cause of the water ingress.
[6] The applicant also seeks an order for reimbursement of their application fees.
[7] I have made an order that the body corporate must undertake works to the waterproofing membranes within the planter boxes as I am satisfied that:
[8] I have also ordered the body corporate to reimburse the applicant for certain costs, as I am reasonably satisfied that:
[9] I have dismissed the remainder of the application in a way which allows those claims to be heard in another jurisdiction. I have been satisfied the remainder of the dispute should be heard in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction as:
[10] The body corporate has asked that I issue an order requiring the applicant to complete an insurance claim form. However, the basis for the body corporate's assertion that it is unable to complete the form itself is unclear (and doubtful). In any case, I have declined to make such an order, as this is not an application against the applicant, nor has the body corporate identified any basis in the legislation for such an order. The legislation concerning applications in this jurisdiction does not contemplate cross-claims.
[11] The body corporate may be well advised to reconsider its approach to handling such situations in the future, particularly in relation to lodging insurance claims. Doing so would likely have facilitated access to expert assessments, and coverage for liability related to damage and potentially loss of rent. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a different approach could have led to a quicker and more favourable outcome for both parties.
[12] The scheme is a building units plan subdivision, now referred to as a building format plan subdivision (BFP), of 26 lots in the suburb of Kenmore. Lots appear to be used for a commercial purpose. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies.
[13] The survey plans also show some lots on the upper level of the building have balconies and built-in planter boxes as part of their lots.
[14] Part of the applicant's Lot 3 is situated directly below part of Lot 17. Lot 17 has a balcony and planter box above Lot 3.
[15] On 10 March 2025 the applicant's tenants alerted them to water ingress issues in the lot. The next day, the tenant suggested to the applicants that they may terminate the lease due to the water ingress and resulting damage.
[16] The applicants alerted the body corporate to the situation and requested assistance on 12 March 2025.
[17] The applicant engaged a contractor to dry and sanitise the lot at a cost of $5,373.50 with the invoice saying they attended 12 March 2025. There is another invoice for drying the lot at a cost of $4,235 dated 1 April 2025. While forming part of the application, this second invoice is not expressly mentioned in the request for final orders.
[18] There is a report dated 1 April 2025 from the company that dried the lot, however the report covers several days of attendance (Metrodry Report). The Metrodry Report include thermal images and moisture readings from the company that dried the lot.
[19] The applicant continued to email the body corporate requesting assistance. To date, no insurance claim has been lodged by either the applicant or the body corporate.
[20] The applicant says that the tenant vacated the lot due to the ingress and damage, and a contract of sale over the lot was terminated for the same reason. The applicant suggests they intend to pursue these losses through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).
[21] On or around 2 April 2025, the applicant was granted access to the lot above, and a plumber conducted a dye test to the "flower beds and patio" (Mr Emergency Plumbing Report). The report found that water was running down the brickwork to the applicant's lot, from the planter box above it.
[22] In late April 2025, another heavy rainfall event occurred, and the applicant says their lot suffered another water ingress event.
[23] The body corporate (via its engaged body corporate manager, Strata Dynamics) advised the applicant that it would obtain quotes to rectify the waterproofing membrane above the applicant's lot.
[24] On 15 May 2025, the body corporate obtained a quote for re-waterproofing 280m2 of planter boxes (EW Quote). The body corporate says this is above its relevant limit for major spending and a second quote was needed.
[25] On 5 September 2025 the body corporate obtained a quote for re-waterproofing the membranes within the planter boxes of Lot 17 only (WS Quote). The body corporate says this is not a comparative quote, and says that it has had trouble getting a second quote due to access issues and contractors not attending.
[26] During this time, the body corporate did not give any assurances that it would take any responsibility or assist with the damage to the applicant's lot. The body corporate did continue to provide the applicant with a link to Strata Dynamic's website to fill out a claim form. Although, the body corporate did not communicate any assurances that the body corporate would take responsibility for the insurance claim excess.
[27] To date, the body corporate says it is still attempting to obtain quotes to rectify the waterproofing membrane, disputes that it is responsible for any damage to the applicant's lot, says the applicant should fill out the insurance claim form, and has still not confirmed that the body corporate will be responsible for the excess.
[28] The applicant sought interim orders that the body corporate implement temporary waterproofing measures. The application was unsuccessful for a few reasons, but most notably because the applicant did not specify or evidence what temporary works would be effective in stopping water ingress into their lot.
[29] The reasons for that decision are explained in Princeton Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 156.
[30] The applicant seeks the following final order:
The Body Corporate must immediately and permanently repair the planter boxes, verandahs, and related structures above Unit 3 to ensure the property is watertight and safe.
The Body Corporate must reimburse the Applicant for the following actual expenses already paid:
The Body Corporate must undertake or fund permanent repairs and related works including:
[31] The body corporate submits that the following orders would be more appropriate:
(a) Within 2 months of the date of this order, the Respondent is to engage a suitably qualified expert to investigate and report on the causes/s of water ingress into Lot 3.
(b) If the report indicates that there is water ingress into lot 3 from an item/s of property the Respondent is responsible for maintaining, the Respondent must within 2 months of receipt of the report, effect such remedial works as are recommended to prevent further water ingress from those identified items of property into Lot 3.
(c) Within 1 month of the date of this order, the Applicant complete the necessary claim forms so that the Respondent may lodge a claim relating to the water ingress issues with its insurer.
[32] Submissions were received from the body corporate, via its legal representatives at Grace Lawyers, and the owner of Lot 17 (the lot above the applicant's, where the failed waterproofing membrane is located).
[33] Upon reading the application, it was not immediately clear to me what the applicant says is the specific cause of the water ingress and damage to their lot. I wrote to the applicant and required them to provide me with various information, including clarification on what they say was the cause. In response the applicant says the failed waterproofing membrane from the planter box within Lot 17 is the cause of the ingress and damage to the applicant's lot below.
[34] Once I received a response from the applicant, I wrote to the body corporate and similarly required the body corporate to provide certain information, including the progress of contractor engagement for the waterproofing membrane that it said was working towards. I also invited the body corporate to respond to the applicant's further information, as well as make comments on some preliminary views I held, in the interests of natural justice.
[35] As the body corporate's response has not altered my decision, I did not find it necessary to seek further comment from the applicant.
[36] The applicant's final orders sought can be divided into three categories, which I will consider in kind:
[37] I will also discuss the body corporate's request that I make an order requiring the applicant to complete an insurance claim form.
[38] The requests for maintenance orders pertain to directing the body corporate to carry out works to items that are not the applicant's damaged property, and relate to fixing the alleged cause of water ingress.
[39] The applicant initially sought an order that the body corporate immediately repair the "planter boxes, verandahs and related structures" above their lot. However, the applicant later clarified that they are only seeking for an order that the waterproofing membrane in the planter boxes be repaired.[1]
[40] For the avoidance of any doubt, I have not been satisfied works to the "verandahs and related structures" are justified, based on the materials in front of me. The applicant says a builder did a visual inspection and had an "informal conversation" suggesting that the entirety of Lot 17's balcony may not be waterproofed. I do not find this convincing evidence that the whole of the balcony is the cause, and give it little weight.
[41] Section 180(2)(iii) of the Standard Module provides that the body corporate must maintain in good condition roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots and common property. There is clearly waterproofing within the planter boxes of Lot 17. While this is not common property, the survey plans show that these planter boxes are above the applicant's lot. It is not controversial to find that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining those membranes in good condition.
[42] The body corporate does not dispute that it is responsible for maintaining the waterproofing membrane within the planter boxes of Lot 17 in good condition.
[43] The body corporate suggests I make an order requiring it to obtain expert reports and to undertake works in accordance with those reports. However, this has always been an option open to the body corporate without the intervention of an adjudicator, and it has failed to do so.
[44] It appears that the body corporate has taken some limited steps. The EW Quote for works to the membrane was valued at nearly $70,000. However, I note the quote is for 280m2 of membrane within planter boxes, which indicates it is not limited to the planter boxes within Lot 17 (the survey plans show there are more balconies and planter boxes throughout the building).
[45] The body corporate submits that the EW Quote is above the relevant limit for major spending and the relevant limit for committee spending at the scheme. The applicant has not disputed this.
[47] Where the cost of a proposal is more than the scheme's relevant limit for major spending, the owners must be provided with at least 2 quotes for carrying out the work,[4] unless there are exceptional reasons,[5] and the quotes should be presented as a group of same issue motions for the meeting.[6]
[48] The body corporate has in its possession, since 5 September 2025, the WS Quote for around $30,000. However, the body corporate says the scope of the WS Quote is not comparable to the EW Quote. The body corporate does not explain why they are not comparable. On review, it seems that the WS Quote is limited to only the planter boxes with Lot 17 where the EW Quote seems to include others.
[49] The body corporate says they have attempted to work with the company that provided the WS Quote to provide a comparable quote to the EW Quote.
[50] It is a sad state of affairs that this many months on, the body corporate has not made a proposal for engagement of a contractor to a general meeting.
[51] In the circumstances, I am satisfied the membranes within the planter boxes of Lot 17 are not in good condition, that the body corporate is responsible for maintaining same in good condition, and I am also satisfied that an order is appropriate where the body corporate has taken limited action to date despite adequate time.
3.2. Orders for reimbursement & repair of damages
[52] There were several aspects of the final orders sought relating to repairs for damage the applicant say they have suffered due to the failure of the waterproofing membrane.
[53] The crux of the dispute lies in the link between the membrane and the damage. The body corporate argues that there is insufficient evidence to link the failed waterproofing membrane above the applicant's lot, with the water ingress damage within the applicant's lot.
[54] The body corporate submits that the Mr Emergency Plumbing Report only links the failed membrane to moisture within Lot 3, but does not express any opinion that it has caused the damaged property.
[55] While I understand the body corporate's position, this is not a matter where I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. I should, however, feel an actual persuasion of a fact, with the allegation made out to my reasonable satisfaction, considering the nature of the allegation and consequences that flow from such a finding.[7]
The leak was found to be entering into downstairs unit 3. The attending technician performed a dye test from the flower beds on the patio. The dye test confirmed the water is coming from the flower beds that back onto the patio and running down the brickwork to the unit downstairs...
... upon inspection, it was evident that the waterproofing in the external structure was either inadequately installed or has deteriorated over time, allowing water to seep through and affect internal areas.
[57] The report includes photos of water running down brick walls (which was dyed green, from the planter box), and water marks down walls internal to Lot 3.
[58] I asked the applicant to have the person responsible for the report show on a survey plan where those photos were taken. The applicant did not provide this. They did however mark up a plan themselves showing the areas of damage in relation to the planter boxes and boundaries on the survey plan.
... upon inspection, it was evident that the waterproofing in the external structure was either inadequately installed or has deteriorated over time, allowing water to seep through and affect internal areas.
[60] The person responsible for the Metrodry Report went on to clarify that the thermal camera and moisture tests detected high moisture along the external walls to the lot, and the situation indicated the source of the water was from an external source to that structure.
[the EW Quote confirms] that the water ingress affecting Lot 3 is significant and involves multiple factors beyond just the planter boxes. His evidence supports the need for urgent and targeted remedial work to the planter-box membrane above Lot 3 to stop ongoing damage.
[62] The body corporate says they agree with the statement that there are multiple factors, and that therefore, it is premature to determine responsibility for the repairs within Lot 3.
[63] I take the "multiple factors" to be reference to the scope of works in the EW Quote, which includes updating the drainage to "ensure compliant drainage", amongst other things. I do not agree that this evidences that the drainage or any other item mentioned is a separate cause of the water ingress. Rather, it simply suggests that there is a nexus between installing and maintaining an appropriate water proofing membrane, and ensuring the membrane has adequate drainage, or is attached to a suitable substrate, to make it fit for purpose.
[64] I also acknowledge that the body corporate has suggested I order it to investigate the cause of the water ingress. To be frank, considering the body corporate's rights of entry into lots,[8] this has been an option open to the body corporate since March 2025 that it has failed to undertake.
[65] Nevertheless, I invited the body corporate to provide an expert report regarding the cause of the damage to the applicant's lot.[9] It declined.
[66] The body corporate seems to have adopted a passive approach towards their defence to this application. It argues the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the membrane is the cause of the ingress or damage. The body corporate has then taken few steps to investigate whether the damage is due to the membrane, despite the body corporate being aware that the membrane has failed, that it bears the responsibility for maintaining the membrane, and the alleged water ingress damage is below the relevant membranes.
[67] Most markedly, the body corporate has refused to investigate while the applicant has been denied access to the lot above, and lacks the legal right to access the lot above, making it difficult for the applicant to provide further evidence. The body corporate, however, has a legal right to enter and inspect lots in certain circumstances.[10]
[68] While the applicant does bear some burden of proof, a failure by a respondent to provide evidence to refute a claim, particularly when such evidence is within its control and not the other party's, and when the applicant has presented evidence amounting to a prima facie case, can give rise to an inference that any such material if provided would not assist the respondent.[11] That is to say, it is not always beneficial for a respondent to simply say the applicant bears the onus, and not provide any evidence to refute claims. This in itself can give rise to an adverse inference against the body corporate in these circumstances.
[69] That issue aside, ultimately the applicant has proven to my reasonable satisfaction that the failed waterproofing membrane is the cause of water ingress to the lot in circumstances where:
[70] As I am satisfied the cause of the water ingress to the applicant's lot is due to the failed waterproofing membrane, and that the body corporate has contravened the legislation by not keeping it in good condition, the question now turns to the damages. More specifically, what is justified and linked to the ingress, and what is within my power to order.
[71] The applicant first sought orders for reimbursement for repair works to the amount of $7,060.05.
[72] The applicant also sought an order for the body corporate to fund repair works. I invited the applicant to provide details of the works they say are required, but no particulars were forthcoming.
[73] The applicant also expressly sought orders for future damages that may occur before the membrane is fixed.
[74] Within the application itself, there is another invoice for drying the lot to the amount of $4,235. However, this amount was not expressly reflected in the final orders sought.
[75] In their reply to submissions, the applicant has advised they have replaced the carpet and sought reimbursement for that cost as well to the amount of $3,635.
3.2.3. Limits to power to order reimbursement
[77] Section 281 of the Act provides that an adjudicator may make on order that an applicant be reimbursed up to $10,000 for repairs for damage to property, or to carry out stated repairs up to $75,000 to damaged property, where the adjudicator is satisfied that the applicant suffered the damage because of a contravention of this Act by the respondent.
[78] I must also observe natural justice. An aspect of affording natural justice is that a person whose interests may be adversely affected by a decision should be given opportunity to respond or comment on the case to be decided.
3.2.4. Amounts for reimbursement expressly stated in final order sought
[79] In the application, the applicant expressly seeks an order for reimbursement for invoices paid related to drying the lot, electrical work and air conditioning cleaning.
[80] I am reasonably satisfied that the Metrodry Restoration Invoice INV-0802 in the amount of $5,373.50 was paid by the applicant to rectify damage to property resulting from water ingress due to the failed waterproofing membrane. The amount was specifically requested in the final orders, so the body corporate has had adequate opportunity to respond to this claim. An order for its reimbursement is therefore justified.
[81] However, I am not satisfied an order that the applicant be reimbursed for the Technicool Invoice 228132 in the amount of $785.00 is justified. There is an email from the applicant stating that this was a regular service plus some additional cleaning, and it is not adequately explained how this work became necessary due to the water ingress.
[82] I am also not satisfied an order for the reimbursement of the plumbing invoice in the amount of $901.55 is justified in the context of this application. The invoice is for exploratory works, and the applicant has not explained how this invoice amounted to repair works or how they are otherwise entitled to reimbursement.
[83] The applicant seeks final orders that the body corporate fund "Ceiling tile replacement, Internal gyprock and paint repairs".
[84] It is not entirely clear from the terms of section 281(1) of the Act but it is arguable that an adjudicator has the power to both simultaneously order works up to $75,000 and a reimbursement of up to $10,000. However, based on the material in front of me, I am not satisfied that an order for works is justified, as the applicant has not given sufficient details or reasons as to what needs to take place and why.
[85] I had invited the applicant to provide quotes specifying the repair works that needed to be done. The applicant stated that:
A full repair quote cannot be provided at this time because:
• all visible damage has been repaired (drying, painting, carpet replacement, electrical safety, air-conditioning cleaning), and
• further assessment (e.g., internal wall cavities) cannot occur until the water ingress is fully resolved and the area is dry and stable over time.
Any quote now would be incomplete and speculative.
[86] The applicant must understand that, even in the circumstances they are facing, an adjudicator does not have the power to write a blank cheque at the body corporate's expense. The onus is on the applicant to ask for what exactly it is they seek, and to show to the adjudicator why such an order is justified (and this is usually achieved through supplying evidence). Again, this is particularly important where there are financial limits to an adjudicator's power to make such orders.
[87] I am therefore not currently satisfied that an order requiring the body corporate to undertake repair works is justified. However, as I will discuss next, I appreciate that the need for it may have arisen since filing this application.
3.2.6. Other amounts, future and further loss claims
[88] The same issue arises from the applicant's request for an order regarding "further emergency drying or mitigation works if additional rain events cause further water ingress prior to full repairs being completed". Orders related to hypothetical future claims, by their nature, cannot be justified.
[89] As an adjudicator, my role is to determine whether the final orders being sought are justified. It is not within my remit to examine the broader circumstances of the application to establish grounds for other orders against the respondent that have not been specifically sought. Nor is it my role to speculate about possible future disputes. This is particularly important in the context of repair and reimbursement orders as there are limits to what an adjudicator may order.
[90] However, I acknowledge that the request for further works or reimbursements may have moved beyond the hypothetical. There were several other financial losses mentioned throughout the application and reply materials that the applicant says they have now suffered. These include an invoice for carpet replacement in the amount of $3,635.00, another Metrodry invoice in the amount of $4,235.00, and a quote for electrical work in the amount of $150.00.
[91] I will not be making an order for reimbursement for these amounts as they were not expressly requested in the final order sought, and the respondent may not have been adequately on notice or able to respond. Markedly, there is also the issue of the limits to reimbursement requests under section 281 of the Act.
[92] Nevertheless, this is not the end of the road for the applicant. I will dismiss the rest of the application's claims, which may now include further losses that have come to fruition, under section 270(1)(b) of the Act so it may be pursued in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. A dismissal under this section, or by the Commissioner under section 250, is generally required before a dispute of this nature can progress in other jurisdictions (like QCAT).[15]
[93] I am satisfied the dispute should be heard in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction in circumstances where:
3.3. Order for reimbursement of application fees
[94] The Act contemplates circumstances where I might make an order for the reimbursement of fees paid by the applicant to the Commissioner's Office for conciliation and adjudication applications.
[95] Section 280 of the Act provides that where the applicant has applied for conciliation and the conciliation was ended because the respondent failed without reasonable excuse to participate in the conciliation, I may make an order for reimbursement of the conciliation and adjudication application fees.
[96] A conciliation application was lodged against the respondent. However, the conciliation began via referral after the unsuccessful interim order application. As a result, no further fees were paid for conciliation of the dispute.
[97] The conciliation certificate states that the respondent did not make a reasonable attempt to participate in the conciliation, via its representative.
[98] In the circumstances and where the applicant will be largely successful in the final application, I am satisfied an order for reimbursement of the application fees for only a final order application, as at the date the application was lodged being $110.30, is justified.
3.4. Order that the applicant complete an insurance claim form
[99] The body corporate has requested that I make an order compelling the applicant to complete an insurance claim form. There is no explanation as to why the body corporate is unable to do this.
[100] The body corporate's decisions relating to the lodgement of an insurance claim are perplexing to me. It is likely that if it had lodged a claim this dispute (and potential further claims) may not exist. For the benefit of both parties, I will make some comments on the lodgement of insurance claims and the payment of excess.
[101] In a building such as this, there is a statutory requirement for the body corporate to obtain a certain level of insurance, including over lots.[17]
[102] Making a claim on the insurance can be particularly helpful in water ingress matters as usually the insurer will engage experts to investigate and report on the cause and resultant damage. The resultant damage is usually covered and other losses, such as loss of rent, may potentially be covered as well.
[103] I understand that it is generally acceptable for lot owners to make claims on the body corporate's insurance as a third party beneficiary.[18] However, the Act does not compel a lot owner to make a claim.
[105] While not expressly stated, and while the body corporate's position may now be different, the context of emails between the parties implied that the applicant would be responsible for the excess, or, at least, there was no assurance that the body corporate would pay it.[21] The applicant advised they would not be lodging a claim on the body corporate's building insurance as they believe the damage would be under the $2,000 excess. In later correspondence, the applicant advised they did not believe they should be responsible for the insurance excess at all. Rather, that the body corporate should be. No claim has been lodged.
[106] The insurer will have its own policies and processes regarding payment of the excess. However, in the context of decision making within a body corporate, who is ultimately responsible for the payment of excess is contemplated in the legislation. Section 203 of the Standard Module provides that where there is an event affecting only one lot, the lot owner is liable to pay the excess unless the body corporate decides it is unreasonable in all the circumstances for the owner to bear the liability. For an event affecting 2 or more lots, or 1 lot and common property, the body corporate is liable to pay the excess unless the body corporate decides it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the excess to be paid for by owner(s). I have previously found that an 'event' is not limited to the location of the damage, and can include the cause.[22] In other words, the excess payable on a claim of this nature is usually the body corporate's responsibility.
[107] It may have been open to the applicant to challenge the body corporate's decision to not lodge an insurance claim or pay the excess. Nevertheless, it was still open to the applicant to simply pursue a claim under section 281 of the Act, which is what has happened.
[108] In relation to the body corporate's request for an order that the applicant complete an insurance claim form, the body corporate has not adequately explained why it is unable to lodge a claim or complete the form itself. Nor has it directed me to any section of the legislation compelling the applicant to do such a thing. In any event, this is not an application against the applicant and I will not be making that order.
[109] I query if this matter may have had a more fortunate outcome for both parties where the body corporate had taken a different approach in the beginning, particularly in relation to insurance and the payment of excess.
[110] I have been satisfied that an order compelling the body corporate to repair the waterproofing membrane within Lot 17's plater box is justified. As there has already been significant delay of these works, I will order that a contractor be engaged within 30 days. However, I will give the body corporate liberty to apply.
[111] I am also satisfied that the body corporate's failure to maintain that membrane is the cause of water damage to the applicant's lot, and that an order that the applicant be reimbursed $5,373.50 is justified pursuant to section 281 of the Act. However, I have not been satisfied that the reimbursement of $785.00 for air conditioning work and $901.55 for a plumbing report is justified, based on the materials currently in front of me.
[112] I am satisfied that the remainder of the application should be heard in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction. I will therefore dismiss pursuant to section 270(1)(b) of the Act.
[1] Section 3 of the applicant's response to my request for further information, dated 25 November 2025.
[4] For a proposal to a general meeting the relevant section is Standard Module, s 173.
[7] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 at [362] per Dixon J.
[9] My letter to the body corporate's solicitors, Grace Lawyers, dated 17 December 2025.
[11] Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8, 101 CLR 298.
[12] The applicant's response to my request for further information dated 25 November 2025.
[14] Wheeler and Smith v Body Corporate for Calypso Towers [2016] QCATA 66 at [63].
[15] Adjudicators have exclusive jurisdiction over certain disputes. See Act, s 229.
[16] I put the body corporate on notice of this possible outcome and invited it to make comment (which it did) in my letter to the body corporate dated 26 November 2025.
[17] Standard Module s 198 and definition of building under s 195.
[20] For further discussion on this point, see The Vue Scarborough [2024] QBCCMCmr 106 at [26].
[21] Email to the applicant from an employee of the body corporate manager, Strata Dynamics.
[22] The Vue Scarborough [2024] QBCCMCmr 106 at [29].